UFC 235 Preview: Jones vs Smith

The UFC’s upcoming PPV event on Saturday, UFC 235, is easily the most stacked card of the year thus far. The headline fight features a Light Heavyweight title fight between defending champion Jon Jones and challenger Anthony Smith, in what appears, on paper at least, to be a David and Goliath matchup between one of the sport’s greatest fighters in Jon Jones and an unlikely contender in Anthony Smith. The card also features a Welterweight title fight between champion Tyron Woodley and challenger Kamaru Usman, as well as many other exciting and divisionally relevant matchups on the undercard.

Jon Jones: A Most Polarising Figure

Jon Jones is arguably the most polarising figure in the sport, even more so than Irish superstar Conor McGregor. On the one hand, he is among the most skilled athletes to ever step into the Octagon. In his title fights, he has routinely outstruck champion kickboxers, outwrestled Olympians such as Daniel Cormier and outgrappled jiu-jitsu champions. His ability to seamlessly combine the many different fighting disciplines is among the best the sport has ever seen. He has the record for title defences in the division by far and has beaten just about everyone in the division. In the eyes of many, Jones is the greatest MMA fighter of all time. Many fans are anticipating a move to the Heavyweight division for Jones in the not-too-distant future should he win against Smith on Saturday.

On the flipside, Jones’ career has been significantly tarnished by his actions outside the Octagon. He has been stripped of the title on three occasions for various misdemeanours as well as repeated violations of the UFC’s anti-doping policy. The last four years of his career, after his suspension and being stripped of the Light Heavyweight title in April 2015 following a hit-and-run incident have been particularly tumultuous. He would return 12 months later, defeating Ovince Saint-Preux for the Interim Light Heavyweight Championship, only to be stripped once again just days before the landmark UFC 200 event in July 2016 for a doping violation. Following his suspension, Jones won the title outright against bitter rival Daniel Cormier in July 2017, only to be stripped a record third time for another doping violation a month later. Following a 15-month suspension, Jones returned in December 2018 to fight and defeat Alexander Gustafsson for the vacated Light Heavyweight title. Even this victory was without controversy, as just days before the fight at UFC 232, a trace amount of the anabolic steroid Jones was banned for using the previous year was found. Though USADA found Jones to be ‘not at fault’ for the violation, the entire card had to be moved from Las Vegas to California on short notice, as Jones could not get granted a license to fight in Nevada in time.

Anthony Smith: The Classic Underdog

His opponent Anthony Smith, by contrast, is the classic underdog figure. He has, until his recent run of victories, been a journeyman fighter within the UFC, trading wins and losses, and even getting cut from the organisation at one point. After making the switch from the Middleweight division to Light Heavyweight last year, he has been on the best run of his career, culminating in a stoppage victory over former title challenger Volkan Oezdemir back in October. In contrast to Jones’ eye-catching, fluid style, Smith is much more workmanlike. This is not to say he is unskilled or not a dangerous and very capable fighter in his own right. His recent winning streak at Light Heavyweight in particular shows his versatility as a fighter.

What Smith does have in spades, however, is experience. A veteran of over 40 MMA fights, he is by far the most experienced fighter that Jones has faced. While the odds are certainly against him, no fighter can ever be counted out, especially in the sport of MMA. He is also a gritty fighter, able to repeatedly come back from significant adversity to finish opponents. He is unlikely to match Jones skill-for-skill, so this attribute in particular will be important. How well Smith rallies from the inevitable adversity that a fight with Jones presents is key to his chances of success in this fight.

Co-Main Event: Woodley v Usman

Aside from the Light Heavyweight main event, there is another title fight in the co-main event, between champion Tyron Woodley and surging contender Kamaru Usman, who boasts an undefeated 9-0 record in the UFC. This will be the fifth title defense for Tyron Woodley, who is the longest reigning current champion.

Woodley and Usman are stylistically similar. Both have strong wrestling backgrounds, relying on their grappling prowess primarily to win fights. The way which they grapple, however, is quite different. Respected MMA analyst Jack Slack has a detailed breakdown of these differences in his latest article on the fight. Similarly, both fighters are also powerful punchers when they choose to strike so they also carry a knockout threat.

When two expert grapplers such as Woodley and Usman fight, there is a tendency for their respective skillsets to cancel each other out. Do not be surprised if the majority of the fight results in a tentative kickboxing battle, with neither fighter wanting to commit offensively, each trying to avoid being taken down by the other.

The Undercard

Aside from the title fights, there are a few other bouts on the undercard to tune in for. The Welterweight feature bout between Robbie Lawler and Ben Askren promises to be an intriguing stylistic matchup between striker and wrestler. Lawler, a former champion, welcomes the highly decorated and undefeated wrestler Askren to the UFC promotion.

Opening up the main card is a bout between former Bantamweight champion Cody Garbrandt and Pedro Munhoz, in a matchup that could easily be the fight of the night. Both men have an exciting, striking-based style. Garbrandt, having lost his last two fights to current champion and bitter rival TJ Dillashaw, will be itching to prove he is still among the elite in the division. Munhoz, meanwhile, faces by far his toughest test in his UFC tenure and will find himself right in title contention if he can pull off an upset over Garbrandt.

Finally, the headline preliminary fight on features an intriguing bout between heavy-handed veteran Jeremy Stephens and the much-hyped prospect Zabit Magomedsharipov. This card promises plenty of excitement and intrigue for both hardcore and casual fans alike. If you are new to the sport of MMA, this card – at least on paper – is an ideal one to start watching.

3 Responses

I’m leaning towards Smith getting soundly thrashed in the main. For me, the co-main is the most interesting fight. Two very high-level wrestlers that can strike. Lawler vs. Askren is also a fun fight, though I assume Lawler will spend most of it on his back. All in all, I agree it’s a great card. Lookimg forward to it.Report

At some point, all of Jones’ baggage is going to finally catch up with him. I do not think tonight will be that time though, and he should cruise to a win. The Cody Garbrandt/Pedro Munhoz I really am curious about, with Dillashaw out of of reach for him I want to see where Cody’s heads at, can he regroup and press on or will the failure to beat TJ linger. Should be great watch.Report

Forgot Cody was fighting. Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Renan Barao was never the same after the two beatings that TJ put on himx but it was admittedly a different dynamic. Barao had been undefeated for a LONG time and TJ utterly destroyed him over several rounds. Cody was an up-and-comer who upset Cruz and both fights with TJ ended quick. Definitely will be one to watch.Report

From August 2018 through February 2019, AVENATTI defrauded a client (“Victim-1”) by diverting money owed to Victim-1 to AVENATTI’s control and use. After assisting Victim-1 in securing a book contract, AVENATTI allegedly stole a significant portion of Victim-1’s advance on that contract. He did so by, among other things, sending a fraudulent and unauthorized letter purporting to contain Victim-1’s signature to Victim-1’s literary agent, which instructed the agent to send payments not to Victim-1 but to a bank account controlled by AVENATTI. As alleged, Victim-1 had not signed or authorized the letter, and did not even know of its existence.

Specifically, prior to Victim-1’s literary agent wiring the second of four installment payments due to Victim-1 as part of the book advance, AVENATTI sent a letter to Victim-1’s literary agent purportedly signed by Victim-1 that instructed the literary agent to send all future payments to a client trust account in Victim-1’s name and controlled by AVENATTI. The literary agent then wired $148,750 to the account, which AVENATTI promptly began spending for his own purposes, including on airfare, hotels, car services, restaurants and meal delivery, online retailers, payroll for his law firm and another business he owned, and insurance. When Victim-1 began inquiring of AVENATTI as to why Victim-1 had not received the second installment, AVENATTI lied to Victim-1, telling Victim-1 that he was still attempting to obtain the payment from Victim-1’s publisher. Approximately one month after diverting the payment, AVENATTI used funds recently received from another source to pay $148,750 to Victim-1, so that Victim-1 would not realize that AVENATTI had previously taken and used Victim-1’s money.

Approximately one week later, pursuant to AVENATTI’s earlier fraudulent instructions, the literary agent sent another payment of $148,750 of Victim-1’s book advance to the client account controlled by AVENATTI. AVENATTI promptly began spending the money for his own purposes, including to make payments to individuals with whom AVENATTI had a personal relationship, to make a monthly lease payment on a luxury automobile, and to pay for airfare, dry cleaning, hotels, restaurants and meals, payroll, and insurance costs. Moreover, to conceal his scheme, and despite repeated requests to AVENATTI, as Victim-1’s lawyer, for assistance in obtaining the book payment that Victim-1 believed was missing, AVENATTI led Victim-1 to believe that Victim-1’s publisher was refusing to make the payment to the literary agent, when, as AVENATTI knew, the publisher had made the payment to the literary agent, who had then sent the money to AVENATTI pursuant to AVENATTI’s fraudulent instructions.

Here are my principal conclusions:1. Attorney General Barr has deliberately misrepresented Mueller’s report.2. President Trump has engaged in impeachable conduct.3. Partisanship has eroded our system of checks and balances.4. Few members of Congress have read the report.

Rep. Justin Amash, a critic of President Trump who entertained a run against him in 2020, became the first Republican congressman to say the president “engaged in impeachable conduct.”

The Michigan lawmaker, often the lone Trump dissenter on his side of the aisle, shared his conclusions in a lengthy Twitter thread after reviewing the full special counsel report.

Amash wrote that after reading the 448-page report, he’d concluded that not only did Robert S. Mueller’s team show Trump attempting to obstruct justice, but that Attorney General William Barr had “deliberately misrepresented” the findings and that few members of Congress had even read it. “Contrary to Barr’s portrayal, Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment,” Amash wrote.

The White House did not immediately respond to request for comment.

The president often says the report found “no collusion, no obstruction,” though neither is true. Mueller did not establish a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, which did interfere in the 2016 election. He did not rule on the obstruction of justice question, saying it was something Congress should determine.

Amash, who was first elected to Congress in 2010, declined on Sunday to rule out a possible 2020 presidential run as a Libertarian candidate.

"Well, I would never rule anything out. That's not on my radar right now," he said of a 2020 bid to Tapper. "But I think that it is important that we have someone in there who is presenting a vision for America that is different from what these two parties are presenting."

Amash told Tapper he believes there is a "wild amount of partisan rhetoric on both sides" and that "Congress is totally broken."

"I think that we need to return to basic American principles, talk about what we have in common as a people -- because I believe we have a lot in common as Americans -- and try to move forward together, rather than fighting each other all the time," Amash said.

Question remains, is Justin Amash going to join any Democrat effort to curtail the president, or is he using this as prelude to something else -- such as his own run for the White House? Drama.

Comment →

Elizabeth Warren Is Rooting for Daenerys Targaryen in ‘Game of Thrones’

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) is a Game of Thrones fan, and her favorite character is, perhaps unsurprisingly, Daenerys “Stormborn” Targaryen, who Warren says, “has been my favorite from the first moment she walked through fire.” We learned this in a column Warren wrote for The Cut published Sunday evening.

In the piece, Warren outlines her reasons for her fandom. Daenerys is fair, she fights for the people, and she wants to end slavery. But in talking about Daenerys, Warren can also, subtly, talk about herself. Like the paragraph below, in which she describes the Dragon Queen—or is she describing herself?

“This is a revolutionary idea, in Westeros or anywhere else. A queen who declares that she doesn’t serve the interests of the rich and powerful? A ruler who doesn’t want to control the political system but to break the system as it is known? It’s no wonder that the people she meets in Westeros are skeptical. Skeptical, because they’ve seen another kind of woman on the Iron Throne: the villain we love to hate, Queen Cersei of Casterly Rock.”

Meta

Featured Comment

If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well It were done quickly: if the assassination Could trammel up the consequence, and catch With his surcease success; that but this blow Might be the be-all and the end-all here, But here, upon this bank and shoal of time, We'ld jump the life to come. But [...]